But also, leavers are pointing out that as NONE of the project fear predictions have materialised everything's going to be OK.

Largely true up to now, yes - but nothing has been finally decided yet. It's safe to predict that business confidence, inward investment etc will depend on the type of Brexit: if we stayed in the customs union the impact wouldn't be great, but if we pull out then there will probably be long-term damage, and if we crash out with no deal there is likely to be short-term damage as well.

Even if we leave on the best terms for us, there will still be a long-term corrosion across many aspects of our lives, such as being left out of EU organisations and research opportunities. And of course, we will have no say in future arrangements.

One wrinkle concerning staying in a different form of customs union - like Turkey - is that while it will provide us with easy access for our goods within the EU, it could put us at a disadvantage with other countries, because trade agreements between the EU and other countries would not cover us. That means that while other countries could import their goods to us (via any other EU country) we could not export our goods to them, except by paying their usual external customs duties.

Just one view from a Bloomberg columnist, but an interesting one. It is all of a day old, but who knows what the situation will be in 72 hours.

Today, I will violate one of my favorite principles, and hereby make this prediction: No Brexit! In other words, the U.K. will not exit the European Union. By 2023, we will look back at the entire ridiculous affair as if it were a rediscovered lost episode of “Fawlty Towers.”

Soon after the referendum in which Brits unwisely voted to leave the EU, I suggested there was a 33 percent chance that Brexit wouldn’t occur. Now, I raise that to 75 percent, and with each passing day of incompetence shown by Prime Minister Theresa May’s administration, the probabilities move higher.

I certainly hope he's right, but the future seems too murky to me for any predictions.

Somebody needs to find a way to get sensible politicians (I'm sure there are some) around the "people have spoken" mantra. It's not helped by the fact that so far, there are no signs of a major shift in public opinion. The worst case scenario now is probably not crashing out of the EU, it's managing to arrange another referendum - and losing again.

I assume that somewhere out there are a number of British nationals who are experienced EU trade negotiators. After all I'm told that we've played a leading part in all EU trade deals for the past 40 years. I cannot help but wonder what they're doing now. Are the recused from both sides or fought over by both as key assets? Either way I would have thought them to be insightful sources.
A quick google search finds two Former EU trade negotiators speaking about the Brexit negotiations. Miriam González Durántez is Spanish but married to Nick Clegg, Steve Bullock Was our man in Brussels 2010-14
Oh dear.

A country leaving the EU is in a weak position for lots of reasons. Its small relative economic size for one thing. But there is also another very specific reason, less discussed but just as important: infrastructure.

A country leaving the EU is in a weak position for lots of reasons. Its small relative economic size for one thing. But there is also another very specific reason, less discussed but just as important: infrastructure.

Code of Good Practice on Referendums adopted by the Council for Democratic Elections at its 19th meeting (Venice, 16 December 2006) and the Venice Commission at its 70th plenary session (Venice, 16-17 March 2007)

24. National rules on both public and private funding of political parties and election
campaigns must be applicable to referendum campaigns (point II.3.4.a). As in the case of
elections, funding must be transparent, particularly when it comes to campaign accounts. In the
event of a failure to abide by the statutory requirements, for instance if the cap on spending is
exceeded by a significant margin, the vote must be annulled.18. It should be pointed out that the
principle of equality of opportunity applies to public funding; equality should be ensured
between a proposal’s supporters and opponents (point I.2.2.d).

(hint: if you can't see it due to the paywall, google search the title and pick from the search results - usually lets you in)

A good number of Leavers do not want to be associated with the exit deal that Britain eventually strikes with the EU, whatever its content. To that end, they are inventing grievances. Disavowal of the agreement allows them to escape blame if economic life deteriorates after its implementation, or voters feel no compensating thrill of self-government. “If only we had left properly,” would serve as the Leavers’ defence against popular anger.

The Brexiters sniping from the sidelines can't lose, really, can they? If Brexit is a success, they'll say "We told you so!" If it's a terrible mess, they'll say to the poor saps who have to make something work "We told you not to do it that way!" And no doubt they will in due course write memoirs full of self-justification and blame-shifting.

The Brexiters sniping from the sidelines can't lose, really, can they? If Brexit is a success, they'll say "We told you so!" If it's a terrible mess, they'll say to the poor saps who have to make something work "We told you not to do it that way!" And no doubt they will in due course write memoirs full of self-justification and blame-shifting.

...whereas remainers will be blaming leavers if it all goes wrong and feeling rather sheepish if it all goes right.

Of course 'all goes right' and 'all goes wrong' are undefined so we can all choose what we think has happened and simply go on shouting at each other.